User talk:Samplexample
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Crucible page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Commdor (Talk) 00:27, April 6, 2012 Edit Warring Note that you are now edit warring over the Repaer page, and edit warring is a bannable offense. What you keep adding is subjective as can be. I have to say that as a Roman Catholic, the reference to Eden is stretching it to say the least. Stop adding it into the article or further action will be taken. Lancer1289 03:31, April 6, 2012 (UTC) Speculation At this time, cease adding speculation into articles. We do not permit it here. If you want to present your theories, there are blogs and the forums for that. The mainspace articles is not the place for it. Since it is becoming apparent that you haven’t read our site policies, I encourage you to read them, which are the Manual of Style and the Community Guidelines, which are linked above. If you persist in adding speculation, in violation of site policy, then there will be consequences. Lancer1289 03:46, April 6, 2012 (UTC) Im not speculation. Its all direct implications. what qualifies for speculation? Im putting non-facts into the trivia section... that's where that type of stuff belongs. If you cant see that the dev was trying to imply the rachni stuff and put it on the wiki, then your are blind. i bet you dont like the ending either. :(edit conflict)No it isn't. It is you interpreting various elements within the universe to come to your conclusions. Therefore, it is your theories, your ideas, and your conclusions. That places it in the realm of speculation, and that isn't permitted. You use words like "it could be assumed" and "The rachni queen alludes", this is either you guessing, or you making concussions. Again, neither of which is permitted in articles. Either cease adding it or there will be consequences. Lancer1289 03:52, April 6, 2012 (UTC) :And that is not where things like that belong because it is all your opinions, your theories, your ideas, and your everything else. Did it ever cross your mind that others don't agree with you? From both your recent edit summary, and your actions, I'm guessing not. You keep trying to force us to publish your theories, and that isn't tolerated in the articles. Either take it to the appropriate place, or action will be taken. :And just to note, telling someone to "get a life" and that they are "blind" is not only rude, but tells me something about you, and it tells me that you want what you want and don't care about anything else. Lancer1289 03:55, April 6, 2012 (UTC) No Im not being selfish... why would I be posting on a wiki if I was? I wanted to spread knowledge. The biblical implications deserve to be present, if not for a factual basis, to give some an idea of the philosophical side to the game. Nothing Im posting is 'out of nowhere' bullshit. Maybe the rachni stuff could be seen that way, but not mentioning it at all is worse. Referencing the geth, rachni, and citadel in refernce to the reapers as a whole is needed. Although a speculation-free summary will take time, i beleive you and I could come to an agreement where we lay out these facts, as well as tie them in to what happens in the last game (as well as justification of their motives in the ending). :No, and I do wonder why I am repeating myself for the third time here. Those are your suggestions, your theories, your opinions, and your interpretations of the universe. None of that is appropriate in articles. What is so hard to get about that statement? If you have a personal opinion about something, then put it in one of the places I mentioned because it is not tolerated in articles. You continue to say that your theories are the only ones that are correct by attempt to force the issue. Either get some proof to back you up, or stop trying to force the issue becuase that never ends well. Lancer1289 04:47, April 6, 2012 (UTC) Apparently not, since most of what I add stays up. Dont threaten me with your computer nerd threats. If u ban me I will just make another account in a new name and/or email. Im not causing any harm; I WANT you to tell me what I can and cant put on which pages. You never actually told me where to put these 'ideas' of mine, you just tell me off, acting like Im some non-fan just putting up random shit to create problems. everything is realistic, not fan fiction, and although the garden of eden parallel may not be FACT, its definitely there, since the theme of ME is technology and its pros and cons. I will continue to add to the wiki in a realistic fashion. you can change anything you dont like, but DONT threaten me. (edit conflict)Seriously again? I have told you now four times that we do not permit speculation in articles, yet, for reasons that will forever escape me, you keep adding it. What you added, hinted by the words "this implies" and "it could be interpreted", was some of the most blatant speculation I have seen. Frankly, since I have told you four times to stop adding it, yet you keep doing so, clearly something I am saying is not making sense. What is so hard to understand about the fact is we do not tolerate speculation in any article? Please tell me because I do not understand what is so hard to understand about that statement. However, this is now getting out of control. I am now telling you to stop adding speculation into articles, in clear violation of site policy, or further action will have to be taken. We, again, have places for you to post all the speculation, your personal theories, and anything else you like, but not in the main articles. Those are reserved for facts, not rampant speculation, personal opinions, and interpretations. Lancer1289 05:20, April 6, 2012 (UTC) For your information, I actually did tell you where you can post your theories and what not. It is in my very first comment in this section, which you either glossed over, or did not read. Quote from comment left at 03:46, April 6, 2012 (UTC): "If you want to present your theories, there are blogs and the forums for that". See I actually did tell you where your theories could be posted, yet you did not listen or ignored the statement. For additional reference, you are causing harm because you are continually violating various site policies. I have asked you multiple times to read said site policies, yet you clearly have not otherwise this would not be an issue. And I am not threatening you, I am telling you a statement, as we do with everyone here who continually violates site policy, for whatever reason(s). The fact is you continue to violate site policy, despite what I keep saying, continue to not read/ignore site policy, so you keep tying my hands. We like people, we like people to contribute, yet when someone does not follow established rules, guidelines, and policies, should we just let them do what they want? The answer to that is simply, no. Lancer1289 05:27, April 6, 2012 (UTC) I know, the only times I did that were my literal first second and third post. I realize what your criteria for speculation is now. I see that it must have a FACT to back it up. I have since only added information that is missing. if I notice that you remove my posts out of spite, not a true rule violation ill be pissed. In the meantime, I was wrong and naive to the site and you obviously arent. Sorry for now. Three Things First. Note that we do in fact have a Language Policy here. We do not tolerate inappropriate or crude language. Further violations of this policy will lead to a ban. Second. Note that modifying comments left by other users is another bannable offense. You are not me, therefore you have absolutely no right to modify comments I left. Comments are the property of the user that left them. Do not do this again. Third. Since it is now painfully obvious that you haven't read any of our site policies, I suggest you do so as you continue to violate them. Lancer1289 04:47, April 6, 2012 (UTC) Blocked You have now been blocked for two weeks, and I call that generous, others might as well, for violations of multiple site policies. That last post on Temporaryeditor78's talk page was literally the last straw. I have never seen anyone violate so many site policies so fast, for which the only reason I can think of is that said user did not bother read any of them. You have violated at least four different policies that I can think of offhand. #Insulting other users #Four separate violations of the language policy that I can document #At the very least, five separate violations of the speculation policy #Editing the comments of other users I can probably come up with more, but frankly I don't see the need. And for your information, if you create another account, you will be permabanned. We have zero tolerance for sock puppetry. Come to think of it, we have zero tolerance for insulting other users. Your last post to the Citadel article was going to get a final warning from me, as I just checked three end game saves, i.e. saves that were on the Citadel at the end of the game, and nowhere in the Codex does it state what you put there. Therefore, you added further speculation to the article, and considering three users have a problem with it, is just further evidence. However, someone undoing your edit is not even close to being any sort of a valid excuse to go an insult them. Ever since this started, your attitude has gone from hostile, to combative, to rude, to outright hostility. We have no need for editors like this. The bottom line is that you clearly did not read our site policies, despite me asking you at least two separate times to do so. So, I suggest over the next two weeks, look around, calm down, take the time to actually read site policy, and come back with a much better attitude because we have zero tolerate here for people who act like you did. There is zero excuse in my book to violate the same policy over five times, and then proceed to break two in one comment. A parting piece of advice, everywhere you go has rules, learn them, abide by them, and you will not have any problems. Lancer1289 06:22, April 6, 2012 (UTC)